Appeal No. 2006-2182 Page 2
Application No. 10/670,623
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an article suspension device for infants.
Claims 1 and 12 are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of
these claims can be found in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Anderson 2,819,923 Jan. 14, 1958
Gabriel 4,095,316 Jun. 20, 1978
Dalmaso 4,253,544 Mar. 03, 1981
Giacona, III (Giacona) 6,029,870 Feb. 29, 2000
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Dalmaso.
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Anderson in view of Dalmaso and further in view of Gabriel.
3. Claims 3, 8, 9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Dalmaso and further in view of
Giacona.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed February 15, 2006) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed November
7, 2005) and reply brief (filed April 20, 2006) for the appellants’ arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007